Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations' destructiveHint/idempotentHint, it discloses the actual effect: the link renders a closed page, stops accepting picks including in-chat cards, and previously made picks survive readably via get_owner_picks with status closed. It also adds an ownership constraint ('Only the passport that made it') that no annotation carries.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the action and its origin, then packs consequences, idempotency, and the ownership constraint into two dense but waste-free sentences.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, yet the description fully describes the post-call state (closed page, no more picks, picks still readable and where to fetch them). For a 2-param mutation with annotations covering safety, nothing an agent needs is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with window_id explicitly tied to show_shop_to_owner (shw_...), which the description reinforces. It says nothing extra about passport_token, which the schema already documents, so baseline-plus holds rather than a higher score.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb-and-resource (close a pick link) and names the creating sibling show_shop_to_owner, so an agent can distinguish it from reopen_shop_window and show_shop_to_owner without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives concrete situations to use it (human already answered, or the link was shared by mistake) and points to get_owner_picks for reading remaining picks. It does not mention the inverse sibling reopen_shop_window or state explicit when-not conditions, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.